Was Stephen Harper Really Tough on Crime? A Systems and Symbolic Action Analysis A thesis submitted to The College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies In partial fulfilment of the requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Department of Sociology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Mark Jacob Stobbe ©Mark Jacob Stobbe, September 2018. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirement for a postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or part, for scholarly purposes, may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis was done. It is understood that any copying, publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Request for permission to copy or use of whole or part of this thesis may be addressed to: Department of Sociology University of Saskatchewan 1019 - 9 Campus Drive Saskatoon, SK Canada S7N 5A5 OR College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies University of Saskatchewan Room 116 Thorvaldson Building, 110 Science Place Saskatoon SK Canada S7N 5C9 i ABSTRACT In 2006, the Hon. Stephen Harper, PC became the Prime Minister of Canada after winning an election campaign in which his Conservative Party of Canada promised to get tough on crime. Over the terms of the three Harper administrations, 81 of the 399 government bills introduced in Parliament contained measures explicitly intended to increase the severity in the punishment of criminal acts. Using both descriptive and multiple regression techniques, this dissertation analyses Statistics Canada incarceration and court sentencing data to assess the substantive effect of the Harper administrations’ legislative changes. It is concluded that there was some toughening of criminal sanctions in Canada during this period, particularly for the offences of drug trafficking, production and importation. However, the toughening of sanctions was modest and left Canada’s incarceration rates stable. Judged against both government and opposition rhetoric, the carceral experience in the United States and a constructed ideal type of a tough on crime government, the substantive toughening of Canada’s criminal justice system during the Harper administrations was muted. The systems theory developed by Niklas Luhmann informs an analysis of judicial decisions and provincial government prosecution policies that concludes a federal political regime has limitations on its ability to impose substantive changes in the outcomes of Canada’s criminal justice system. The theories of symbolic action developed by Murray Edelman informs an analysis of the legislative and fiscal record of the Harper administrations to argue that much of the criminal justice program of the Harper administrations was symbolic. It appeared to be designed to generate acquiescence to the Conservative government rather than to effect a substantive toughening in the outcomes of the criminal justice system. The muted substantive effect of the Harper administration’s tough on crime program resulted from both systemic limitations on the federal government’s powers and a lack of serious intent by government actors. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been completed without the support of my supervisor, Harley Dickinson. As an undergraduate three and a half decades ago, I served as his research assistant. He taught me valuable lessons about intellectual rigour. When I returned to academia, he added lessons about friendship. Hongming Cheng, John Hanson, Norm Zlotkin, and Laura Wright provided invaluable advice and support as members of my advisory committee. Justin Piché gave me rigorous critique and positive feedback as my external examiner. My sons, Nicholas and Jacob, were remarkably tolerant and indulgent as their father decided his mid-life (using the term loosely) crisis would take the form of becoming a student while they were in high school. Marilyn Totten agreed to join her life to that of a graduate student, which is surely an act of love. My parents, Margaret Munro and John Stobbe, have always been exceptionally supportive. Many others contributed to this dissertation in strange and wonderful ways. Margaret Sadler proof-read the manuscript with an eagle eye and good cheer. Tim Killeen, Sandra Chapman and Shannon McNicol made it possible because of their commitment to justice. Judy Samuelson, Delaine Scotten, Brian Topp, Myrna Hewitt, Cheryl Hewitt, Kim Pollock, Pat Atkinson, Roy Romanow, Ken Wilkinson and many others made it possible because of their commitment to friendship in good times and bad. Joe Garcea, Terry Wotherspoon and Peter Li made it possible by making a return to graduate school possible. Louis Dingley and my colleagues at Keyano College made it possible to bring my knowledge and experience into the classroom. Any errors or omissions are, of course, completely my responsibility. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PERMISSION TO USE ....................................................................................................................i ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... xii 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1 1.1. Definition of “Tough on Crime................................................................................3 1.2. Importance of the Issues Examined .........................................................................4 1.3. What Was Known about the Harper Administrations’ Criminal Justice Policies ...6 1.4. Research Questions ..................................................................................................6 1.5. Approach to the Study .............................................................................................7 1.6. Structure of the Dissertation ....................................................................................8 2. Review of Literature on Incarceration Rates and the Harper Administrations’ Justice Policies ...................................................................................................................11 2.1. Analysis of Canadian Incarceration Trends ...........................................................11 2.2. Literature about the Justice Record of the Harper Administrations………………14 2.2.1. Literature on the Political Context of the Harper Administrations’ Tough-on-Crime Policies ...........................................................................16 2.2.2. Literature on Individual Tough-on-Crime Legislative Initiatives .............17 2.2.3. Summative Analysis of the Harper Administrations’ Tough-on-Crime Policies .......................................................................................................19 iv 2.3. Limitations of the Literature on Canadian Incarceration Rates During the Harper Era ..........................................................................................................................22 3. Systems and Symbolic Action Theories as a Framework for Analyzing the Record of the Harper Administrations ......................................................................................................29 3.1. Luhmann’s Systems Framework............................................................................31 3.2. Edelman’s Theories of Symbolic Action ...............................................................34 3.3. Explanation and Theory Testing ............................................................................36 4. Methodology: Description and Issues ................................................................................39 4.1. Methodological Implications of the Nature of the Argument ................................39 4.2. Textual Analysis ....................................................................................................40 4.2.1. Hansard Recording of Parliamentary Debates ..........................................41 4.2.2. Judicial Decisions ......................................................................................44 4.2.3. Policy Directives ........................................................................................45 4.2.4. Media Articles ............................................................................................46